28 May 2009

There is not a one, single example in the
history of the United States to which any jurist in this country can point where
the Federal government mandated, under the Commerce Clause, that an individual
enter into a third-party contract with a private entity for the
provision/procurement of a government-approved good or service as a condition
of good citizenship.Not. One. Single.
One.

No one denies the right of the Federal
government to regulate the insurance industry.Indeed, the Supreme Court has already held that the Federal government
has the power to regulate the insurance industry under the Commerce
Clause.It did so in United States v
South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944).As any learned jurist knows or a marginally
capable user of Google can discover, the reason that the Federal government has
not been regulating the insurance industry in the ensuing decades is due to the
party of President Barack Obama, the party of the little guy.

Following the Court’s ruling in
South-Eastern Underwriters, Democrats in Congress and President Truman passed
and signed into law the McCarran–Ferguson Act of 1945, which exempted the business
of insurance from most Federal regulation, including Federal anti-trust laws to
a limited extent.

If you’ve ever wondered why there are so
few health insurance companies in your state or why you can’t purchase
insurance across statelines, you can thank a Democrat.The
‘Party of the Workingman’ loved creating oligopolies for their buddies back
home.So what if Joe down at the petrol
station has to pay a few more bucks a week and gets less service?Where’s he going to go?He’s a captive customer…thanks to our
pardners in Washington.

All
of this, however, has nothing to do with the the ability of the Federal
government to mandate individuals purchase health insurance. No one
denies that the Federal government can regulate the transportation of
gasoline by BP; yet, has one person ever argued that, pursuant to the
Commerce Clause, the government can compel Americans to enter the petrol
market and purchase BP products? What about the people, who do not
drive?

Further,
the idea that the Commerce Clause is some sort of catch-all that can be
used to regulate anything that tangentially affects interstate commerce
is a flatout falsehood and makes those, who argue it look pathetically
ignorant. Anyone familiar with Federalism is aware that the Federal
government cannot force states to lower speed limits, raise driving
ages, lower the legal blood alcohol level, or increase the drinking
age. This is true even though a drunk teenager driver speeding on an
elevated portion of the interstate, who crashes into a petrol truck
causing a fire and structural damage to the infrastructure, which
results in the closure of that stretch of the interstate for months,
will have a direct and adverse impact on interstate commerce. As the
Court ruled in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), all the Federal government can do is to "attach
reasonable conditions to funds disbursed to the states." Federal
mandates, unreasonable conditions, and/or the withholding of otherwise
due Federal funds would violate the Tenth Amendment.

So, let's stop playing games and trying to be cute-by-half. The Bullshit Stops Here!To quote Howie Dean, "yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!"